REFUSAL TO CONSENT TO BLOOD TRANSFUSION: Are your religious beliefs worth dying for?

Hi, readers of the blog! I really appreciate you taking out time to read my blog and even taking a step further to interact with me in the comment section. You guys constantly validate my decision to start a blog.💕

Today’s health talk is inspired by recent happenings in my place of work.

A patient needed blood and there was a donor who met the clinical criteria for donation. The technician asked a student present on voluntary laboratory training to bleed the donor while giving me the side eye and nodding to show that she was only teasing the student.
If you have ever donated blood, work(ed) in a laboratory or been present during donor bleeding, you would agree with me that the needle is much bigger than the regular one used for injectables. Quite frankly, that needle scares me. This isn’t about me or my fear of needles. The donor had very prominent veins on his cubital fossa but I still expected her to refuse to carry out the procedure because most new students on laboratory training share my fear.

Instead she refused on religious grounds. I would later find out she is a member of an infamous christian movement that prohibits blood transfusion.

I tried to explain to her that in order to be inducted into the profession, she would have to let go of those beliefs because it was her choice to refuse blood transfusion for herself but she would be legally bound by the oath she would take when she gets inducted into the profession to bleed a donor when ever need be. Regardless of what her religious beliefs are.

We went on to debate the whole concept of transfusion of blood and it’s products. After sereval minutes of a very futile debate, I realised she was not going to have a change of heart. So I asked her if she knew about blood transfusions before she decided to study a health related course and she said she knew. Then I asked her why she did not choose a course of study that was more accommodating of her religious beliefs. She couldn’t give a tangible reply.

Read also: What really matters? Love or Genotype?

I have met my fair share of people with this belief. A significant number of my dad’s relatives are part of the movement and one thing I have learnt over time is never to argue about religious beliefs or doctrines with them.

Everyone knows their resilience towards teaching the word of God; in the sun and in the rain, no matter how hard you shut your door in their faces, or how many times you pretend not to be home, or how loud you shout the words “never come back to my house”.
They somehow never lose their cool and keep coming back. Infact they should be applauded for such a great sense of humour.

Most of us have heard countless stories of people who for religious beliefs refused blood transfusion and died. One peculiar case was that of a 6 year old boy whose parents refused blood transfusion in order not to offend God and they watched him die. They put their religious beliefs before the needs of their child and consoled themselves that he had gone to meet the lord in “paradise”.

Another man who was the sole bread winner of his family had a PCV of 4% and refused transfusion. Needless to say he died and rendered his wife a penniless widow and his children fatherless.

Maybe in both cases they were simply scared of being shunned. Shunned like how the ancestors shun Davina in originals. Tongue out if you dont watch originals. Shunned like ostracised. Just imagine being shunned or disfellowshiped in the house of God where everyone is supposed to be welcomed.

The blood policy began in 1945 and was seen as an offence worthy of everlasting death but was seriously enforced in 1961 when their leaders were not content with leaving it in God’s hands. They began to judge and officially disfellowship those refusing to accept their misinterpretation.

In 2016 over 1200 people died prematuredly as a result of this blood policy.

I wonder why they see blood as scared and a symbol of life but value human life less, thereby placing more regard on the symbol than what it symbolizes. This alone can be used to explicitly explain the concept of foolishness misplaced priority.

Read also: Circumcision Palaver

I recently got wind of a story where a patient’s relative provided blood for transfusion against all odds and the patient still died because the health worker on duty left the patient unattended waiting for the next staff to resume his/her shift some hours later and proceed with the transfusion. When the patient died, questions were asked and they found out the patient wasnt given the blood. On a closer interrogation, the health worker admitted to not transfusing the blood during her shift because it was against her religious beliefs.

See what I was telling the student at the lab?

It may interest you to know that some of them secretly ask for blood transfusions when in life threatening conditions and ask for special confidentiality from health workers. Most of them go as far as keeping it a secret from even their spouses. And leave it to the health worker to make up a reason why the patient has to be left alone to receive blood tranfusion rest. But join the fold to shun other members that do it publicly. Hypocrisy.

While researching this topic, I found they now accept organ transplant as long as all the blood is drained out of it. (See Genesis 9:4 “But you shall not eat flesh with it’s life, which is it’s blood) they have the understanding that transfusion and transplant are the same as ‘eating’.

That aside.

This would be their 3rd decision on the issue of organ transplant as they have moved back and forth by first permitting organ transplants and leaving the choice to individuals, then prohibiting it, condemning all those who participate and comparing it to cannibalism and now saying it is down to the choice of the individual. read more

All this going back and forth makes me question the authenticity of their doctrines. Are these beliefs that are the very core of my extended family like millions of families in the world instructions from man God?

I am a bit taken aback because if they can accept transplant including bone marrow (which makes the blood) and some of them are comfortable with procedures like autotransfusion, and transfusion of blood products like albumin or platelets just not packed red cells.

It now seems to depend on personal interpretation of rule like they are oblivious of the fact that red blood cells do not contain DNA and within a few months they would hardly be any donated blood left at all. But if you change an organ that organ will still carry the donor’s DNA.

So you would agree with me that there is a big question on what they believe about constituents of blood and tranfusions.

They argue that according to Acts 15:28,29, Leviticus 17:10 and 14, and Deutoronomy 12:23, God said we should not eat blood. Bear in mind that ‘eat’ also means ‘transfuse’ in their dictionary. I guess this is one of the things we’ll have to wait and ask God about.

They quickly forget that one of the risks of transplant surgery is blood loss. Refusal of blood transfusion after transplant surgery means risking organ loss. Risking the organ they went under the knife for, an organ hundreds of people are on waiting lists to have and would gladly accept any medical procedure that would increase their chances of survival, some people even die before it gets to their turn on the waiting list. The same organ someone so graciously donated to them for something that is preventable.

Nevertheless, it is good news that bloodless transplant surgeries for kidney and lung have been successfully conducted amongst others. Much to my amazement but is the risk worth it? Some people have even tagged it the ‘future of surgery’. But for now, the casualties outnumber the successes. Hopefully the numbers would get better with time. We would have to wait and see.

Blood transfusion is an important life saving procedure in managing patients with low blood volume. They are varying religious beliefs on this with some religious institutions kicking against the practice. But the question is, are some beliefs worth dying for?

The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie-deliberate, contrived and dishonest-but the myth-persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.

-Annonymous.

featured image


Disclaimer: I am not an expert on either religious doctrines or health matters, but I know a thing or two about both and I love to share my opinions.


Let’s converse in the COMMENT SECTION:

  1. What are your thoughts about blood transfusion?
  2. Do you think parents religious beliefs about blood transfusion should be upheld even when children are facing death?
  3. What are your thoughts about health workers refusing to administer blood or blood products to consenting patients for religious reasons?

If you enjoyed reading this. CLICK LIKE so a girl knows she’s doing something right.

Do you agree that more people should read this? Well then SHARE!

Will you like to get notified when ever I publish a new post? Yes? FOLLOW or SUBSCRIBE via email (you’ll receive an email immediately to confirm your subcription).

Advertisements

57 Comments Add yours

  1. I think that if you take a position in a profession it is convention to participate in ALL ASPECTS of the job position. This I LITERALLY your job description. Also, I would think that God also wants people to live so, I don’t see that giving or receiving blood should have any bearing on the state of your everlasting soul.. Although, I am no expert either.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Sim says:

      Indeed. It is clearly stipulated in the oath and everything.
      Many thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts😊

      Liked by 1 person

  2. AdnamaMarais.wordpress.com says:

    Don’t mean to be grammar police. But don’t you mean ‘bound’ ‘legally bound’?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      Oh,Thankyou for pointing that out.I’ll correct it.

      Like

  3. AdnamaMarais.wordpress.com says:

    I agree if a person is not the donor or recipient why would they be objecting?

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Sim says:

      My point exactly. Makes no sense it me.
      Thankyou for reading😊

      Like

      1. AdnamaMarais.wordpress.com says:

        You are Welcome ☺👍

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Sim says:

        😊😊

        Like

    2. Good morning, Sim! Very lovely piece as always.

      I see nothing wrong with blood transfusion and I can’t even give you a reason why. It’s not wrong, in my opinion, and I frown when ’em “ama Jehovah” say it is. (ama Jehovah is what most of us Igbos call your colleague’s kind)
      In the case of the young boy who died because of his parents’ ignorance, I shake my head. This is a sensitive topic and I would hate to offend anyone’s beliefs.
      My point is this: if you say blood transfusion is bad and we shouldn’t donate blood to YOU, great! But if you say it’s bad and as a medical practitioner, you won’t donate blood to someone that doesn’t share your view, you’re high on opium!
      Lemme go share your post now and stir up trouble on Facebook 😉

      Unrelated: The Originals is for kids. 😒 Real (wo)men watch The walking dead 😂

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Sim says:

        Share away and pray they are no fanatics on your timeline.
        Cus they’d let you have it.

        Heeey! 😲 how dare you!
        Klaus Mikelson is standing on this table you are shaking and we will take no prisoners.
        Thankyou for reading, commenting and sharing. I really appreciate😊

        Liked by 1 person

  4. I hope that health worker that murdered a person and said she was waiting for her shift to end lost her job and license? I just hope…

    Liked by 2 people

    1. aletheia101 says:

      Jail is more like it, forget the licence😒.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Yes, and went to jail too. It’s so annoying

        Liked by 1 person

    2. Sim says:

      I hope so too.
      I don’t know how they punished her.

      Like

  5. ruthsoaper says:

    A health care professional should not having the option of refusing to do the job. It is their chosen profession and their religious beliefs should not interfere.
    My religious beliefs would not prevent me from having a transfusion but I do think that adults should always have the right to refuse medical care for themselves whether it be for religious reasons or any other. And as sad as it is to think of children dying I also believe that parents should have the right to make medical decisions for their children.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Sim says:

      Well said.
      There are more than a 100 professions to choose from, so they should be no pressure to pick one that would prompt one to go against his/her beliefs.
      Thankyou for reading and sharing your thoughts.

      Liked by 1 person

  6. You have a right to practice your religious beliefs as long as it’s not trampling on the rights of others, in this case, a right to choose to be transfused and a right to live! It’s really a dicey situation. But still, you took an oath to follow all the ethics and place human life above all. If you are not comfortable with some things, then don’t go into the profession and endanger people’s lives. From my ethics class, as a scientist, all decisions and actions must place the well-being and good of the society first. The concept of refusing blood transfusion but accepting organ transplant seems contradictory, what’s the point biko? Also, God is not wicked, maybe that scripture should be read in context.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Sim says:

      This is exactly the point I am trying to drive home. It is clearly spelled out in the oath and they always give a minute or two for people to opt out of taking the oath if they feel they can’t stick to it.

      Makes no sense to me too. I was very shocked when I learnt they accept organ transplant and still refuse blood transfusion. Besides, I don’t think an organ can be rid of all the blood and blood cells it contains before transplant but what do I know?
      Thanks for reading and sharing your thoughts dear.

      Like

  7. ihuomasylva says:

    For a patient refusing blood transfusion, that I can understand but for it to be the health worker ….. Well that’s not nice at all

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Sim says:

      True. But it is rather weird that someone will refuse one pint of blood or less and accept full heart transplant or even bone marrow that makes the blood.
      It’s just like saying “I don’t eat rice because I am diabetic” then drinking one crate of mineral and claiming it’s not the same thing.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Kris says:

    I read this as was stunned. When a person accepts responsibility for a job and gets paid for it, they need to accept all of it and not pick and choose. Especially at the risk of the patrons or in this case, patients.
    If a patient changes their mind in their own personal life with their faith, well, that is their own discussion with their God when they get to the other side. Which might be sooner than they think if they play around with the question of life and blood.
    Faith makes people think and believe a lot of different sorts of things. I know where I stand, usually…….

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Sim says:

      You put this so well-“Faith makes people think and believe a lot of different sort of things.”
      Faith also promotes oath keeping and most health care professionals have to take an oath before getting a practicing licence, so they should know that having a belief that is contradictory to your professional oath is not wise. Pick a struggle.

      Liked by 1 person

  9. Sim sim! I have learnt something simple about people and religious beliefs. Romans 14 and 15 has said it all that we should accommodate those who are weak and live in the old testament or with false doctrines and pray for them. One day e go better

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      Well, this pretty much sums it. We have to respect their beliefs even when their beliefs makes no sense to us.
      I’m glad you learnt something. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

      Like

  10. murisopsis says:

    It is the same for those who carry the banner of Animal Rights. They refuse all treatments developed using animal experimentation – everything from blood transfusion (Rh factor was developed using Rhesus monkeys thus the Rh designation) to anesthesia, antibiotics, chemotherapeutic agents, and surgical techniques. Of course when they have been struck down with cancer or crushed in a car accident their ethics evaporate and they readily accept the drugs, surgery and lifesaving transfusions… it is revealing that when faced with their own death most will save themselves. It is reprehensible to make a decision to withhold treatment for a child. There is a special place in Hades for those people.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      It is the brain washed faithful followers that perish while others jump ship the first chance they get.
      I hear they are laws on how far a parent can make medical decisions regarding their child(ren) in some countries.
      Thanks for sharing your point of view on the issue.

      Like

  11. odong prince thompson says:

    Myth:Many Witnesses, including children, die each year as a result of refusing blood transfusions.
    Fact:This statement is totally unfounded. Surgeons regularly perform such complex procedures as heart operations, orthopedic surgery, and organ transplants without the use of blood transfusions. *Patients, including children, who do not receive transfusions usually fare as well as or better than those who do accept transfusions. *In any case, no one can say for certain that a patient will die because of refusing blood or will live because of accepting it.
    Why don’t Jehovah’s Witnesses accept blood transfusions?
    This is a religious issue rather than a medical one. Both the Old and New Testaments clearly command us to abstain from blood. ( Genesis 9:4; Leviticus 17:10; Deuteronomy 12:23; Acts 15:28, 29) Also, God views blood as representing life. ( Leviticus 17:14) So we avoid taking blood not only in obedience to God but also out of respect for him as the Giver of life.
    Changing viewpoints
    Complex surgeries can be successfully performed without blood transfusions
    At one time, the medical community generally viewed strategies for avoiding transfusions, so-called bloodless medicine, as extreme, even suicidal, but this has changed in recent years. For example, in 2004, an article published in a medical education journal stated that “many of the techniques developed for use in Jehovah’s Witness patients will become standard practice in years to come.” *An article in the journalHeart, Lung and Circulationsaid in 2010 that “‘bloodless surgery’ should not be limited to J[ehovah’s] W[itnesses] but should form an integral part of everyday surgical practice.”
    Thousands of doctors worldwide now use blood-conservation techniques to perform complex surgeries without transfusions. Such alternatives to blood transfusions are used even in developing countries and are requested by many patients who are not Jehovah’s Witnesses.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      I know better than to banter about myths and none myths.
      The numbers are there and only those that want to see it for what it is, will.

      Did you notice how you conveniently did not find any fault in the health worker that refused transfusing blood when she clearly took an oath (which isn’t compulsory) to put her religious beliefs aside when dealing with patients? (See Ecclesiastes 5:5).

      All good doctors “not thousands of doctors” use blood conservation techniques to perform both simple and complex surgeries. No good doctor lackadaisically allows blood loss just because he/she looks forward to transfusing a patient.
      Transfusion is an emergency life saving procedure. It is not done because health professionals love seeing pints of blood stuck on people.

      I am not sure you read my post to the end.
      Because you clearly repeated the bible references in the post and most of your arguments are already stated in the post.
      So I would advice you to re-read again (s l o w l y) this time to understand my point of view and not to defend your beliefs. I can’t change your beliefs or see them as law. I can only respect your right to have them and try to understand why you have them.

      Then maybe you can explain the reasons for the contradictory revelations about organ transplant (we both know that God is not an author of confusion), state biblical reasons for the shunning and disfellowship action, and give medical backing on why I should believe that the organs are rid of every single blood cell before transplant (if not, you would agree with me that they also take in a little bit of the life of the donor).

      Thankyou for reading and sharing your thoughts. 😊

      Like

      1. Sim says:

        Prince o! I dare say your defence looks a lot like ‘copy and paste’.
        And maybe very little or no ‘edit’.
        I carefully researched this topic and I read exactly this somewhere.
        Erm… I want YOUR thoughts on the matter not watch tower’s thoughts. Thankyou.

        Liked by 2 people

    2. aletheia101 says:

      How does eating blood relate with receiving transfusion??? It’s English, not rocket science 😒

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Sim says:

        😄😄 just pray that one of those people that dig into the Greek and Latin origin of a word don’t see this comment because this would likely be the reply:

        Tranfusions is coined from 2 greek words “trans” meaning “blood” and “fusion” meaning “eating”. Therefore, transfusion means “blood eating”

        Like

  12. Donnalee says:

    No, Oxford Enlgish Dictionary says ‘transfusion’ is:
    Origin
    Late Middle English (in the sense ‘cause to pass from one person to another’): from Latin transfus- ‘poured from one container to another’, from the verb transfundere, from trans- ‘across’ + fundere ‘pour’.

    The ‘blood eating’ etymology thing is completely made up. I studied Latin and Greek and it just isn’t that–transition, transatlantic, transportation have nothing to do with blood but do include the ‘across’ aspect. Confusion would be ‘poured with’, and ‘infusion’ is poured in–nothing about eating. Were you joking about that?

    As to the main question, I say that if you are engaged to do a job, you must do it, or don’t have that job. There are many jobs I don’t do because i disagree with them personally, like being a butcher or making chemicals that harm people etc., and that’s my choice. I can also refuse transfusions or surgery etc. for myself if it is my beliefs, but I feel that I would have no right to refuse lifesaving healthcare for children. That’s just my view.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      Lol.😅 I was joking but thanks for the information. I did not know that.
      I 100% agree with you.
      Thanks for taking time to read and for your detailed feedback.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Donnalee says:

        I never know these days who is joking online and who says wrong stuff in all seriousness. Oh well! That’s the worldc these days–and I would not be at all surprised to have someone quote what you said as complete vindication for their own view.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Sim says:

        Haha😄.
        You are right though. Some people believe everything they see online.

        Liked by 1 person

  13. Jesus healed physical maladies and heals us spiritually. Disciple Luke was a doctor. Case closed.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      Thankyou for sharing your thoughts.

      Like

  14. Darrell says:

    You said transfusion is a lifesaving medical procedure that people should have, but is that really so? Let’s assume the patient goes ahead and has the transfusion without any casualties (which is quite uncommon -@immunologic suppression), does that mean the person won’t die again? No. The person will still die eventually but he would have lost the possibility of benefiting from the blood of Jesus Christ that God has provided for us, through which our life can be saved eternally.(Ephesians 1:7; Revelation 21:4)
    To have an organ transplant, like many other alternatives to transfusion, is a decision made based on individual conscience. Each person considers the bible principles relating to this and makes a decision on whether his/her conscience will allow him to have a transplant.

    Would you mind if I sent you an email to talk more about this?

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      It is common to NOT have casualties. Note that the blood is not just taken and put into people. It is taken, TESTED, and compared with the recipient’s blood to see if they match before transfusion. Bear in mind that all drugs are poisons and every time you go to a hospital there’s a slight possibility that a drug might just not be right for you. Does that stop you? No. Because the pros outweigh the cons.

      When I say “life saving procedure” I mean something that has a high probability of leading to loss of life if neglected.

      Why do people take drugs when they are sick? Does taking drugs mean they won’t die again? NO. The person will die eventually.
      Even people that have months or weeks to live mostimes still undergo chemotherapy because they want to have a fighting chance. EVERYONE DESERVES A FIGHTING CHANCE.

      I do not interpret the bible and the dictionary your way, so transfusion is not a sin to me. This is where we differ.

      True. Organ transplant is a personal decision NOW. But can you explain why it was somewhat a personal decision, then became cannibalism then back to being a personal decision?
      I’ll like to know the progression of the contradicting revelations. Was it God -Man-God or Man-God-Man or God-God-God or Man-Man-Man? God is not an author of confusion(See 1corin 14:33) and he honours his word more than his name.(see Psalm 138:2)

      What do you think about the health worker who left a consenting patient to die after she had taken an oath to do the opposite? (See Ecclesiastes 5:5)

      What are your thoughts about shunning and disfellowship action taken against offending members? (See 1corin 4:5, James 4:11, Luke 6: 37, Luke 6:41, John 8:7, Romans 2:1 and Romans 14:10)

      No problem. Check out the information you need on my contact page.
      Thankyou for sharing your thoughts about this.

      Like

      1. Darrell says:

        Exactly what you said. Pros and Cons. And in this case, the pros of not having a transfusion are greater than the Cons both medically and spiritually.
        A lot of people have the mistaken view that a blood transfusion will IMMEDIATELY improve a patient’s chances of surviving a surgery but the truth is that such transfused blood doesn’t add to the oxygen holding capacity of the blood till approximately 24h later, which means it won’t actually have any significant effect on the patient’s chance of survival apart from being a volume expander. Non-blood alternatives (like simple saline solution or Ringer’s lactate) do the same job of volume expansion better without any of the risks of blood transfusion.
        Everyone deserves a fighting chance. I totally agree. But at what cost? When “trying” to save your life now in this world fraught with problems can make you lose the opportunity to live forever in a world filled with peace and joy, is it worth it?

        I’ll send you the answers to your questions in an email as soon as it’s possible.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. Sim says:

        Let’s talk basic biology; a collection of cells with a specialised function is a tissue (Blood is a tissue). A collection of tissues with a specialised function is an organ.
        Do well to state with references why I should believe that the organ is rid of every drop of blood before transfusion
        Your information is wrong to the best of my knowledge.
        Are you saying that blood tranfused into a patient doesn’t go into the circulatory system untill after 24hours? Because if it does, you would agree with me that the lungs are one of the vital organs in blood circulation.
        Note that any normal red blood cell that visits the lungs leaves as an oxygenated red blood cell regardless of if it is the donor’s red cell or a recipient’s red cell. The lungs doesn’t do nepotism.
        I gathered from a very reliable source with 30years and counting of blood transfusion knowledge that there is a visual and significant positive change when blood is given to an anaemic patient in dire need of it within MINUTES of transfusion.
        Again, we do not share the same understanding of the word both biblically and literally.
        However, I am sure you do not tell people you will like a rice and beans transfusion for breakfast. Or do you?
        From what I have learnt about english language in my few years on earth, most synonyms are used interchangeably. So it is safe to say you also think it is correct to say “I tranfused garri and melon soup for lunch”.
        (I don’t know if this makes any sense to you).
        For the benefit of those who read comments, I think it would be wise if you shared your answers here.

        Like

      3. Darrell says:

        Hey! Sorry, I had posted my reply since tuesday evening but it’s just now I was going through the other comments and I realised that it didn’t send. It likely was a network problem.

        Like

      4. Darrell says:

        Here’s my reply:
        The red blood cells may be oxygenated but almost immediately after it’s donated, human blood starts losing a key gas that opens up blood vessels to facilitate oxygen transfer from blood cells to the tissues that need it.
        Our refusing to accept blood transfusions is entirely based on religious reasons though. The medical advantages of that stand are just another benefit.

        You quoted Genesis 9:4 in your post. That verse shows that life is represented by the blood. So God wasn’t just talking about what not to eat, he was attaching a very important moral principle to blood. The only time God’s servants in the past were allowed to use blood was when they were offering sacrifices to him. Since blood represents life, giving it back to Jehovah shows we recognize him as our life-giver and enables to have atonement for our sins. Any sacrifice that is to be accepted by Jehovah for the forgiveness of our sins had to include the pouring out of blood(Hebrews 9:22). Pouring out blood(on the altar or ground) therefore wasn’t simply a religious ritual, they were in effect returning the creature’s life to God.

        Now, this law that God gave wasn’t to be set aside in times of emergency as we can see from the account in 1 Samuel 14:31-35.

        You also mentioned Acts 15:28,29. We’re told here to “abstain from blood”. No distinction is here made between eating and taking it into the blood vessels. We are to abstain or avoid taking in blood as a whole, regardless of the method through which it’s given. Let’s also take a look at the other things that are mentioned alongside blood in that verse. We read of sexual immorality and idolatry, which you’ll agree with me are things that God detests. God’s placing blood on the same level as such detestable things help us to know how he feels about our taking in of blood.

        Here’s another very important reason why we should abstain from blood mentioned at Hebrews 9:11,12,22. Jesus’ blood has been offered as a sacrifice for us and it’s very important for us to be able to gain forgiveness of our sins. So by respecting God’s view on blood and it’s use, we won’t be trampling God’s Son and esteeming his blood of ordinary value (Hebrews 10:29). Only then will we enjoy the prospect of everlasting life with human perfection and freedom from all types of illnesses.

        Like

      5. Darrell says:

        To answer your other questions…

        The changes in our view of organ transplants is due to a progressive understanding of scriptural truths. We don’t claim to be infallible but we’re being taught by God (Isaiah 54:13)and God has always led his servants progressively into the truth as we can see in Daniel 12:9 and John 16:12,13. Since previously established truths are being clarified by Jehovah step by step, there’s also the need to correct and adjust our viewpoint on different scriptural matters over time when continued study of the bible leads to fuller knowledge and understanding. That’s why there sometimes are adjustments in our viewpoint on certain matters.

        Any vow or oath that calls on one to do something that is in conflict with God’s righteous principles is not binding before him (Deut 23:18; 2 Cor 6:16-18). In Deuteronomy 23:18 God said that it’s detestable to use something detestable to him to fulfill a vow. There we have the example of The price paid to prostitutes or immoral persons and as we saw in Acts 15:28,29, the misuse of blood is considered as serious a sin as that.

        Only the sacrificial use of blood has ever been approved by God and disregard for the requirement that Christians ‘abstain from blood’ would be evidence of gross disregard for Jesus’ ransom sacrifice. tians ‘abstain from blood’ would be an evidence of gross disrespect for the ransom sacrifice of Jesus Christ. (Lev. 17:11, 12; Heb. 9:12-14,22). So anyone who ignores this divine requirement and manifests an unrepentant attitude is disfellowshipped from the congregation following the principle in 1 Cor 5:11-13

        Like

      6. Sim says:

        Sorry about the late reply, I have been very busy lately and barely had time to read or reply comments especially the ones that need an intellectual reply like yours.

        Indeed. The red blood cells may lose nitric oxide when outside the body.
        Regardless, in the words of the Prof that first found out about the gas. “Transfusions are still critically important”
        He also opined that adding this gas back to stored blood before transfusion appears to restore red blood cell’s ability to transfer oxygen to tissues. Although the banked blood cannot do this properly, they encouraged the use of nitric-oxide based therapies.

        Leviticus 3:17 says “you shall not eat neither fat nor blood. Do witnesses avoid all fat? Or is avoiding blood more convenient?

        According to pp. 13-14 Watch tower society article titled Blood medicine and the law of God published in 1961, it is wrong to sustain life by administering a transfusion of blood or plasma or red cells or other component parts of blood.

        However, in the last 30 decades the WT has approved the use of red cells, white cell and platelet derivatives. Infact, it is now easier to list out what they do not permit.

        Stay with me.

        RED BLOOD CELLS: they are not approved. they are the largest component of blood comprising of about 45% of blood volume. It has no nucleus (no DNA) and serves to transport hemoglobin throughout the body.
        i)Hemoglobin: it is approved. It is an essential protein responsible for the transport of oxygen and carbon dioxide. It is the main component of blood and accounts for about 96% of the weight of red blood cells.

        WHITE BLOOD CELLS: They are not approved. They are primarily the soldiers that fight foreign invaders like viruses and bacteria. It accounts for 1% of blood volume. They are banned but all the ingredients and derivatives are permitted.
        Interferons, interleukins, GM-CSF etc.
        PLATELETS: are responsible for stopping bleeding. They have no nucleus (hence no DNA) they are not approved. They remain banned but everything within it is permitted.
        i)platelet derived growth factor: aids wound healing
        ii)Platelet gel: derived from the patient’s blood by seperating the platelets by centrifugation. It is almost the same as autologous transfusion.

        PLASMA: it is not approved. It contains 92% water,7% proteins, clotting factors, sugars, fats, hormones and vitamins. Like others derivatives are allowed.
        i)Albumim: blood contains 2.2% albumin by volume (white cells which are banned are 1% of blood volume). Albumin is used to treat burns. A typical third degree burns requires about 600g of albumin. Producing that amount required about 45litres of whole blood.
        It is obvious that the blood used to derive albumin is not “poured out” as suggested but stored which is prohibited for a blood transfusion but permitted in this context.
        According to Awake 09/08/1956, albumin was banned but the ban was lifted in 1981(was the previous ban from God or men?)

        Do you know that vaccination was once a crime? In the exact words of the golden age published Jan 5 1929 “Vaccination was a crime, an outrage and a delusion”.
        (See Golden age Oct 12, 1921, p.17 and Jan 3, 1923 p.214).

        They accused boards of health of starting epidemics in other to enrich themselves with the use if the devilish practise of vaccination.
        They argued that vaccination was “animal filth” and would pollute humanity. See Golden age Feb 4, 1931 p.293

        Infact, at one point in the early 1920’s they believed the 3 major evil forces in the world are false religion, governments which are ruled by Satan and the oppressive big business. Hence vaccination was seen to favour the oppressive big business.
        These same arguments were applied to organ transplants and then tranfusions.
        According to Awake Oct 22, 1990 ” The objective of the series was to give the impression that blood was “red gold” and that the international red cross is guilty of massive deception by using unethical methods to sell blood for profit.
        (Note that some hospitals like university of illorin teaching hospital has abolished blood purchase. They adopted the donate to replace method.)

        Years later, they issued a statement saying after consideration, vaccination did not appear to be in violation of the everlasting covenant made with Noah in Gen 9:4 or lev 17:10-14 and bore no resemblance to Gen 6:1-4 or Lev 18:24.

        They never apologised for misleading good people and like always, took the easy way out by saying it is a question of individual concerned to decide for himself.

        Why wasn’t It left to the conscience for all those years? Was God trying to make up his mind about Vaccinations?

        It is like saying sexual immorality is wrong for decades unend and then coming to tell me it is not so wrong sha. It is just a matter of conscience.

        By the way, vaccines for the prevention of tetanus, hepatitis, measles, mumps and whooping cough etc are derived from blood substances.
        Including Rhogam that is given to rhesus negative women with rhesus positive husbands to prevent HDN in subsequent pregnancies.
        So at one point a JW has undergone tranfusion if you take the word literally.

        People have died for WT bans that are now obsolete.

        The WT should be clear on God revealed doctrines and their personal thoughts on some matters. Even Paul gave us that simple courtesy.
        Not trying to twist the bible to suit them at a particular time and then going back on their word because God is not an author of confusion (1corin 14:33) and his word REMAINS

        See Psalm 89:34 “My covenant will not break or profane, nor alter the thing that is gone out of My lips”
        Matthew 24:35 “Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away”.
        (See also psalm 138:2, Jeremiah 1:12 and Isaiah 55:11)

        If we add up everything in blood that is separately permitted, it amounts to almost 100% of blood volume.
        It’s like saying I don’t take orange then I squeeze out the juice of the orange and drink and throw the shaft away while strongly maintaining that orange is bad for me.
        Or saying I don’t eat meat but taking the broth.
        Or like saying sexual immorality is bad and then going on to have coitus interruptus and maintaining that it is not the same thing as having sex to the end.

        Is blood transfusion really prohibited or not?
        Why are witnesses permitted some blood tranfusions and not others?
        Is it to quote you loosely “God’s way of leading his servants progressively into the truth according to John 16:12,13?
        For the so called ‘sole channel of God’ to be so inconsistent in it’s message on blood issue is not how I see God communicating.
        Yes ‘sole channel of God’ cus According to the watchtower; 10/1/1994; pp.8 “All who want to understand the bible should appreciate that the “greatly diversified wisdom of God” can be known only through Jehovah’s channel of communication, the faithful and discreet slave.”
        See also: watch tower 12/1/1981, pp.27, and watchtower 1/9/1989, p.19.
        This assertions amongst tens of them by the WT are not in line with God’s word according to 1corin 2:10, Romans 8:16,26-27 and Acts 2:38. The holy spirit is there for EVERYONE. Not a select few.
        They have referred to themselves as the Moses of this time but that’s why Jesus died na. So everyone can hear God directly. This is symbolized by the tear in the temple veil. See: Mark 15:38, Matthew 27:51.
        You mentioned John 16:12,13. But did you read the whole chapter?
        Did you see verses 7-8?
        I assume you would want to argue this from the point of ‘we-know-God-for-ourselves’ but do you? Because if yours values and beliefs have changed in concordance with WTs doctrines does it mean the holy spirit has been revealing God’s word to all witnesses at exactly the time WT makes a new publication?

        About oaths. Have you read Ecclesiastes 5:5 like I suggested? Do you know that taking these oaths are not compulsory? Infact, they announce that inductees should pre-read the oath and opt out voluntarily if there are uncomfortable with any stipulation.
        (See Proverbs 11:3 and proverbs 20:25)

        About your justification of shunning and the disfellowship action.
        See James 2:10
        “For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it”.

        Let’s assume blood transfusion is a sin and then you reject it but steal or lie, you become as guilty as the person who accepted blood transfusion.

        If you argue this point you would have proved to me according to bible standards in 1John1:10 that the truth is not in you. See also Romans3:23,
        Romans 3:10,Luke 6:37 and John 8:7

        Have you ever sinned? Were you disfellowshiped or your elders were not aware of your sin?
        Or your sin wasn’t a ‘big deal’?
        By your standards, we should all not be talking to each other because we all deserve to be ostracised completely.

        Note that some of Paul’s statements were his own thoughts and not God revealed which he clearly made known sometimes as seen in 2cor 11:17, 1corin 7:25 and 1corin 7:12
        However, he did not explicitly state that 1corin 5:11,12 was from him or God. Let’s assume it was from God. It would make me wonder why Jesus would spare a known prostitute from being stoned according to the law of Moses in John 8:3-9 and then later call for the ostracism of people in this category. This is of course according to your assertion that God sees immorality and blood transfusion as “sins” in the same category.

        You said nothing about my question if the organ transplanted is rid of every drop of blood.

        Like

  15. Tamie says:

    Oh Sim is shaking this table!
    Lol

    Hmmm any health worker who because of their personal religious belief prevents a patient from getting care is unfit to be a health worker and should leave the profession. My candid opinion.

    I don’t have any problem with people and their religious beliefs. What I find annoying is some hypocrisy surrounding it.
    An example.. An unmarried lady with robust sexual history has premarital sex, gets pregnant (an ectopic pregnancy), has surgery and post operatively refuses blood on religious grounds. Is premarital sex okay on religious grounds?

    I think in recent times, it is now based on their personal convictions, especially with auto transfusion . I’ve managed a patient who had her own blood transfused(though she didn’t want her relatives to know).

    When this decision involves children is when I care or find it heartbreaking. Cos children can’t make this decision by themselves, unlike adults.

    No doctor rushes to transfuse any patient if it’s not needed. It’s an emergency intervention.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      😂😂 Imagine. Now relatives are now God representatives. Is it really God that prohibits this or the society cus to the best of my knowledge, God is omnipresent so what’s the point¿

      Thankyou Dr. Thankyou. This says it all: “No doctor rushes to transfuse any patient if it is not needed. It is an emergency intervention”

      Liked by 1 person

  16. gaillovesgod says:

    I did not know there were people who believed like this. I can only imagine how hard that must be wholeheartedly believing something like this and having a child who would suffer (or die) because of your belief. I pray for those parents and those children, especially anyone in dire need of blood and in need of someone willing to share it. Praise God that Jesus was willing to share His! ❤ We were in such need of it!

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      Sadly, they are people who believe it. I pray the holy spirit helps them understand the bible for themselves and not just swallowing a group’s words hook, line and sinker.
      True. Jesus was willing to share even when we were ignorant of the fact that we needed it for our own good.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. gaillovesgod says:

        praying with you!

        Liked by 1 person

  17. Flyawayria says:

    A very good post. Throws light on something that I’d never heard of before. Good Job✌

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      Thanks for taking time to read and leaving a feedback😊

      Liked by 1 person

  18. Neha Sharma says:

    This is such an eye-opener for me! I cannot come to terms with this and I agree with your stand on your student’s profession. The last thing this world needs is having such people in the field of medicine, who are a hazard to all those around them. True they have a right to hold opinion, but then they don’t have a right to interfere with someone else’s right to LIVE.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. Sim says:

      You summed it up nicely Neha,
      “They have the right to hold an opinion, but then they don’t have the right to interfere with someone else’s right to LIVE”!

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Neha Sharma says:

        Thank you, Sim! Your post moved me enough to say that 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s